Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Hope Hicks is President Trump's longest serving aide, and among his most trusted. After nine hours with the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee regarding its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, she's resigning. We are being told the two are not related.

During the questioning, she declined to answer questions about the administration.

According to Reuters, Hicks did more than steer messaging. She was a constant presence in Trump’s orbit, sitting in on interviews with reporters and quietly steering press-related policy while maintaining a behind-the-scenes, low-but-glamorous-profile.

Lawmakers said Hicks, Trump’s spokeswoman during the 2016 election campaign, did answer House panel questions on Tuesday about her time with the campaign, and the transition months between the November election and the January 2017 inauguration.

A one-time aide to Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and with no previous experience in politics, Hicks was one of the first people hired by the then-New York businessman when he began his campaign for the presidency.

An aide said she had approached the president and told him she wanted to leave so she could start exploring opportunities outside of the White House.

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia ran a program of hacking and disinformation to interfere in the elections. February 16, a U.S. special counsel indicted 13 Russians and three companies on charges of tampering in the campaign.

Russia denies interfering in the U.S. election and Trump denies any collusion between his campaign and Moscow officials.

Hicks took over as communications director in September after Anthony Scaramucci was fired. She is credited behind the scenes for stabilizing the communications operation.

Hicks said in her own statement that “there are no words to adequately express my gratitude to President Trump. I wish the president and his administration the very best as he continues to lead our country.”

Article IV, Section 1 begins with The Full Faith
and Credit Clause.The clause reads,
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by
general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings
shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

In simple, modern day language, under the Full Faith
and Credit Clause judgments rendered in one State are acknowledged in others;
when a U.S. citizen resolves an issue within one of the States that resolution
must be recognized by all other States.

The Founding Fathers originally intended, with the
Full Faith and Credit Clause, to protect the self-government autonomy of the
States, while also promoting the union of the sovereign States as well.To do this, the Founding Fathers needed to
make sure that judicial rulings in one State would be respected by all States,
because otherwise there would be a substantial opportunity for abuse.Doing so affirmed the autonomy of the
individual States, while also ensuring that the states remained unified.

Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, something as
simple as a marriage would not be recognized outside the State where the
proceeding took place.If the married
couple moved to another state, it would be necessary to marry all over again,
otherwise they would still be considered unmarried.However, thanks to the Full Faith and Credit
Clause, the State that serves as the new home of the transplanted married
couple recognizes the marriage contract agreed upon in the State of origin.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause also protects against
abusive litigation.If someone in one
State sues someone and the court delivers a valid judgment in favor of the
defendant, the person who filed the suit cannot file the same suit in another
State against the same person.Under the
Full Faith and Credit Clause, the outcome of the suit in the first State is
recognized and considered to be the final judgment.Likewise, someone who is ruled against in
litigation in a State cannot flee to another State to evade punishment, because
the ruling in the first State's court is still valid in the new State.

As a result of the Full Faith and Credit Clause,
professionals like doctors and lawyers only need to go to school once.As they move to new States, they can apply
for reciprocity in certification so that they can practice in their new
location.State privileges like drivers
licenses also benefit from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because when
people move to different States, they can renew their driving licenses in the
new State without having to go through drivers' education a second time, as
long as the standards for licensure are similar between the two States.

Privileges
and Immunities

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 gives the people of
each state all the same privileges and immunities uniformly in each state.In other words, if a Texan moved to
California, the Texan must be treated by California in no different manner than
the State treats Californians.A State
could not pass a law keeping Texans out of their state, but letting others
in.This violates the Constitution.A State cannot play favoritism in such a
manner for any reason.All persons must
be treated uniformly in the eyes of the law.This is the clause the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause sought
to broaden, in order to ensure that the former slaves would also be afforded
the same protection, privileges, and immunities.

Extradition

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that “A
person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall
flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the
executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be
removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.”

Fugitives that flee a State from justice to another
State will be extradited on the demand of executive authority (governor)
of the State from which the person fled from.The Constitution, in this clause, demands the extradition of fugitives
who have committed "treason, felony or other crime," which means that
it includes all acts prohibited by the laws of a State, including misdemeanors
and small, or petty, offenses.

Since the word “shall” is used regarding the
extradition order by the governor of the State, that means the extradition
order will not be questioned.That also
means the accused cannot defend himself against the charges in the extraditing
State.The fugitive may only defend
himself against the charges in the State receiving him.

The courts have determined that the accused may
prevent extradition by offering clear evidence that he was not in the State he
allegedly fled from at the time of the crime in the case, Hyatt v. Peopleex rel. Corkran (1903).

Fugitive
Slaves

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 is obsolete because of
the abolition of slavery, as per the 13th Amendment.During the era the Constitution was written,
slavery remained in place, and slaves were seen as property by the States in
which slavery was legal.The
Constitution, as a compromise to assure that southern States ratified the
document, included Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, as a compromise, which
demanded that escaped slaves be returned to their owners in the south, even if
that slave was in a northern State.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 supported this clause
of the Constitution, hoping to ensure under penalty of law that the slaves were
in fact returned should they turn up in the north.Northern States were refusing to return
escaped slaves, and the federal government refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave
Act and the Constitution, creating, in the minds of the Southern States, a
constitutional crisis.

Nullification is often blamed for its part in the onset of the
American Civil War.Those that argue
that nullification was a part of bringing about the War Between the States will
argue that the Southern States were guilty of nullifying perfectly reasonable
federal laws.In reality, the Southern
States did not nullify any federal law.It was the northern States that actively nullified federal law.They nullified The Fugitive Slave Act by ignoring
the legislation, and refusing to abide by it.However, since The Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional, the
nullification of the law by the northern States was unlawful, and
unconstitutional.Threatened by the fact
that the northern States were ignoring constitutional law, the federal
government was refusing to enforce the law, and anti-slave candidate Abraham
Lincoln had won the presidential election without even being on the ballot in
the South, eleven southern States withdrew from the union in 1860.

New
States

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 gives Congress the
authority to admit new States.If a new
State is formed within the borders of an existing State, from a portion of an
existing State, or by combining two States, then the State legislatures of all
States affected must also get involved.This provision came into play is when West Virginia was formed from part
of Virginia during the Civil War.The
Virginia State legislature had to approve the formation of the new State of
West Virginia before the new State could claim it was a separate sovereign
State.

In California, there has been a number of
recommendations for breaking up the large State, from a 2014 suggestion of
forming six States from the former Golden State, to thirteen counties that
threatened to secede in 2010 as suggested by a local politician.If any of these plans for new States out of
the existing State of California had an opportunity to follow through with
their threat, the approval process would still need to go through the existing
California State Legislature.The loss
of taxation, and representation in Congress, would probably convince the
legislature to deny losing any portion of their State to the formation of a new
State.

Territories
and Federal Property

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 gives the Federal
Government "power over the territory and property of the United States."Territories like Puerto Rico fall under this
clause, treating the territories not as individual sovereign states, but as
territories under the control of the U.S. Government.Territories still enjoy a certain amount of
autonomy, but ultimately, their governance falls under the authorities granted
to Congress.Washington DC also falls
under this clause, which means that Congress has authority over the functions
of the city.In reality, Washington DC
was supposed to only be the seat of government, and was not supposed to contain
any residencies.Many of the framers envisioned
Washington DC as being a thriving commercial center.

Border
Security and Insurrection

Article IV, Section 4 reads, “The United States
shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,”
meaning that each State may have its own constitution, as well as a
representative government based on the rule of law.

The second part of Article IV, Section 4 provides that
the United States “shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion;
and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the
Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”

The Federal Government, according to the final clause
of Article IV, must protect each State from invasion, which, in line with the Necessary
and Proper clause of Article I, Section 8, is a firm directive to the
federal government to keep the national borders secure so as to protect the
States from foreign invasion.If
executive agencies fail to take the actions necessary to secure the border in
order to protect the States from invasion, the militia can be called into
service by either the Congress, or the governor of the State being invaded, in
order to repel the invasion.

The
Federal Government, in this clause, is also tasked with quelling domestic
violence.This part of the clause refers
to insurrection, and it is likely the writing of this clause was directly
influenced by the occurrence of Shays' Rebellion in 1786.

Terms:

Extradite:
The surrender of a person charged with a crime by one state or country to
another state or country.

Full
Faith and Credit: In the context of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, the
phrase is defined as requiring all States in the U.S. to recognize and give
effect to the legislation, public records, and judicial decisions of other
States in the United States.Full Faith
and Credit also means: An unconditional commitment to pay interest and
principal in debt, usually issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or another
government entity.

Nullification:
State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.

Questions for Discussion:

1.What kind of issues does the Full Faith and
Credit Clause affect in today’s American society?

2.How does the Full Faith and Credit Clause
protect the autonomy of the State, while protecting their unity?

3.For what kind of crimes may a person be
extradited for?

4.The northern States believed the Fugitive
Slave Act to be a bad law, even though it was Constitutional, and believed that
they had a right to nullify it because they perceived it to be immoral.The Federal Government failed to enforce it,
possibly for the same reasons.How did
this make the Southern States feel, and how did this action contribute to the
secession of the Southern States?

5.The federal government is tasked with the
duty of protecting the States against invasion.How does this affect the issue of illegal immigration?

that, as the relator showed…he
was not within the state of Tennessee at the times stated in the indictments
found in the Tennessee court, nor at any time when the acts were, if ever,
committed, he was not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Federal
statute upon that subject…”)

Joseph
Andrews, A Guide for Learning and
Teaching The Declaration of

Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original
Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San
Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Posted by Douglas V. GibbsAuthor, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The political correctness liberal left madness has gotten so bad in Sweden that people are being arrested for complaining about the rapes by Muslim refugees. . .

Hogg identified Loesch as the CEO of the NRA, which she isn’t. After being corrected, Hogg went on to say, “She’s national spokeswoman, and as such, she’s a national propagandist for the NRA. If you listen to her speak, she’s not really saying anything. She’s sounding positive and confident and that’s what she wants the people in the NRA to believe, her 5 million plus members. She wants them to think that she’s on their side but she’s not. She’s actually working with the gun manufacturers because…” he began.

Propagandist? Is the propagandist calling the person speaking the truth a propagandist? And . . . she's somehow working for the gun manufacturers? It sounds like the truth dot org people slamming tobacco companies.

Wow!

“So you’re trying to drive a wedge between the NRA leadership and its members?” the host, Brian Stelter, asked.

“Oh, I don’t have to,” Hogg replied. “She’s doing that herself honestly, because she’s showing that she doesn’t care about them. She doesn’t care about police. She — why do you think she’s criticizing these people? It’s because she’s going after them and she wants her base to continue attacking them so she can sell more guns.”

Are gun owners and conservatives anti-police? Does this moron not realize it's been the liberal left anti-gun nuts that have been rioting with an anti-police message?

The "sell more guns" angle is what really got me. Somehow, Dana must be profit driven . . . how could that be if she's not a gun dealer?

He's using the same verbal strategy the Democrats use against "big tobacco" and "big oil" and "big pharma" and "big corporations." It's a socialist message.

What I am hearing from Hogg is "anti-capitalism" along with this anti-gun message. The indoctrination of the school system, and possibly his parents, has done a real job on him. He can't possibly see Dana Loesch as someone who supports gun rights. In Hogg's mind, Dana is simply a greedy capitalist profiteer.

I'm surprised he didn't call her a member of the bourgeoisie.

Dana is a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association. And the NRA is not some huge cartel, or terrorist organization, or greedy corporation. It's a gun rights organization. Period. And, if you've been following Dana Loesch all the way back to her blogging days, she's always been a staunch supporter of gun rights. Hogg, like most Democrats, can't imagine that someone is actually pro-gun. Their only thinking is that there must be a more nefarious reason. It must be a hobby of people who burned ants with magnifying glasses when they were kinds, or it's about profiteering, or all gun owners are potential mass murderers that just haven't been pushed over the edge.

Once, a Democrat asked me "aside from your lame 2nd Amendment argument, why do you like guns?" He thought he had me in a "gotcha" moment. I responded, "I am a firm believer I can provide protection for my home against intruders faster than the police can, I enjoy going out and shooting and working to become a better shot, especially when it comes to skeet. It's challenging, enjoyable, and keeps my reflexes sharp."

I imagine he was expecting something like, "It makes me feel big and bad" or something like that.

The confused "oh" that he squeaked out was almost hilarious.

When it comes to America's gun culture, Hogg literally has no idea what he's talking about because all he knows is talking points. The younger generation doesn't understand the dangers of having an unarmed society, and I am willing to bet that not a single one of the "anti-gun activists" have ever had the opportunity to fire a gun in their lives. I am even willing to bet they think the AR-15 is an automatic rifle. I am willing to bet they don't know the difference between automatic, semi-automatic, single action, bolt-action, lever-action, or pump-action. And, more importantly, they do not remember when America stood against tyranny. They don't remember the Soviet Union. They don't remember the Eastern Bloc. They don't remember nuclear drills in school. And they've never heard the true stories of American History. I am willing to bet they know very little about the truth behind the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, and the real history behind the rise and fall of tyrannies. And hosts, like CNN's Brian Stelter, who was talking with Hogg in the verbal exchange explained above, wasn't about to let the kid hear anything other than what needs to be fed to him.

The sad part is Mr. Hogg doesn't understand he's simply a tool being used by liberal left statists who seek tyranny, and are willing to do anything, including fund murder (or the politicization of it) to move their agenda forward.

To the hard left Democrats, the ends justifies the means ... no matter what.

Loesch responded to Hogg’s idiotic smears, weighing in on Twitchy: "There was zero correction from Brian, who allowed misinformation to stand, further proving my point about how CNN smears innocent, law-abiding gun owners."

If reelected, it would be Feinstein's fifth six-year term. State Senate leader Kevin de León has established himself as a huge supporter of illegal aliens, California's sanctuary State status (in fact, it was De Leon's bill), and single-payer socialist-style healthcare programs. Rewarding his left-leaning insanity that even makes Feinstein look a little bit on the conservative side, he won the support of 54 percent of the delegates at the state party convention, short of the 60 percent needed to secure the party endorsement. Feinstein received only 37 percent of the votes.

Could it be that California Democrats want more federal intrusion, and more socialism, than even Feinstein was willing to try and offer? The endorsement contest was a “test of the establishment’s authority and power,” de León chief of staff Dan Reeves said before the vote.

The California State Senator sees himself as outside the establishment. He's a far left offering who is willing to move in socialist directions that the Democrat Party has been willing to go, but not just yet - and they are not willing to admit.

While Feinstein maintains a large financial lead, De Leon's win could be signalling not only that he is a force on the rise, but that the party is no longer satisfied with the stealth communism they've always pushed. Now, the younger Democrats are ready to rip off the shroud, and go for broke.

No endorsement was also made in the governor’s race, with Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom receiving 39 percent of the delegates, compared to 30 percent for State Treasurer John Chiang, 20 percent for former state schools chief Delaine Eastin, and just 9 percent for former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

That all said, it is possible to win without the party's endorsement. Feinstein's run for governor in 1990, coupled with a very non-Democrat Party stance regarding capital punishment cost her the party's endorsement. The party endorsed her more liberal rival, Attorney General John Van de Kamp, but in the end, she won the primary that year.

In his speech, de León seemed like he wanted to reveal how far to the left he truly thinks (and I think he thinks more leftward than he is willing to reveal). He said he would have voted against the Iraq War and domestic wiretapping. Feinstein voted in favor of both. He also said that he will never be “fooled into believing Donald Trump can be a good president.” It was a statement designed to stand in stark defiance of a comment by Feinstein, “I just hope he has the ability to learn and change — and if he can, he can be a good president.” She voiced the comment at a Commonwealth Club forum at the historic Herbst Theater in San Francisco last year.

Feinstein, in her speech, hammered on gun control, trying to capitalize on the news that has been a constant buzz in the aftermath of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

As she spoke, she lost track of the time, and as the music played to usher her off stage, she innocently said, “I guess my time is up.” De León's supporters grabbed the opportunity, and ran with it, shouting back, “time’s up!”

The hard lurch to the left of the Democrat Party in California may not be in line with what the voters want. I am wondering if they've bitten off a large bite of being Soviet that might be bigger than voters are willing to tolerate. For Republicans, that might be good news, because the hard left positions of California's Democrats, and the incredible number of Democrats jumping into each of the races, may, in the long run, hurt the Democrat Party's attempt to gain seats in legislative bodies.

Republican Representative Darrell Issa's seat may be one of those seats the Democrats may not be able to grab. Issa has announced he will be retiring, and for that seat so many Democrats are running that it may split the votes, and cause the Democrats to not have a chance at changing that district from red to blue. A number of seats for Congress in a number of districts are facing the same reality. It may even be possible that with all of the vote splitting, it could change the whole dynamics of the June 5 primary and send two Republicans to the November election in the case of some of the seats, thanks to California's top-two primary system. Democrats need 24 seats to reclaim the majority in the U.S. House — and are putting money and attention toward 10 California contests. Each and every race matters, but the volume of Democratic candidates is a particular problem they may have to try to figure out how to overcome.

In the 39th Congressional District, where Retiring Representative Ed Royce will be departing, at least eight Democratic candidates so far are on the ballot.

While there is an effort to eliminate California's Top Two Primary, which has been supported by pretty much all parties, and advocates on both sides of the aisle, the Republican Party establishment, led by top funder Charles Munger, has refused to back the effort. As for myself, I am in full agreement in eliminating the top two primary. Open primaries are an attempt to move us towards a pure democracy, and it compromises some of the mechanisms in place that create a check and balance, not only against the politicians, but against pure democracy and a one-party system that could move us toward the kind of dictatorial tyranny that the Framers of the Constitution meant to protect us against.

My, my, my, the students sure organized fast for their anti-gun rallies after the school shooting in Florida. It's almost as if their anger was scripted. Their message includes singling out the NRA, as if the National Rifle Association is some incredibly lobby forcing politicians to vote a certain way with their money. It's not like that, at all. The NRA simply sends money to candidates they believe agrees with their "right to keep and bear arms" platform.

While the students are demanding that politicians stop taking money from the NRA, have they considered being concerned about the politicians who take money from CAIR, who's involved in the funding for real terrorism? How about the textbook companies who receive money from Saudi Arabia? Are they concerned about how inside the schools they are being taught messages about sexuality, from kindergarten to 12th Grade, despite the protests of many parents, that teaches about normalizing relationships outside traditional marriage, and explains to kids as young as twelve the details about oral sex, anal sex, transgenderism, and homosexuality?

One citizen member made a motion to remove this phrase from the lessons and to simply use the word “sex” instead. Through parliamentary maneuvers, other members of the committee made sure the amendment was put off indefinitely without debate. The vote to cut off debate and never speak about it again passed 23-3.

The member who offered the amendment asked for a roll call, so that those voting to keep in “sex assigned at birth” would have their names associated with their votes. The motion for a roll call was killed by voice vote.

No debate, no accountability.

Another citizen member made a motion that, somewhere in the numerous lessons about various contraceptive methods taught beginning in eighth grade, there ought to be something about the possible health risks of certain contraceptives.

This, too, was shut down without debate, by a vote of 23-3. A roll call of the vote was shouted down by voice vote.

I am thinking the angry students either don't know about the sexualization of their generation, or they've been convinced by the powers-that-be that it's completely normal education. Which means, the idea that government can dictate to law-abiding citizens their mode of protecting themselves, and criminalize firearms, is just another normal thing that should happen. What's to worry about? This is America. There's no chance that the leaders would use that power in a tyrannical way . . . right?

Their handlers have convinced them not only that they are doing the right thing with their anti-gun crusade, but that the gun control establishment will help them along the way.

On March 24 the students have organized a protest, March for Our Lives, on the National Mall in Washington D.C. The application for a National Park Service permit required in order to hold the rally was submitted by Deena Katz, co-executive director of the Women’s March LA Foundation.

The event’s website doesn’t mention the connection, pushing the narrative that this is some kind of grassroots march created by, inspired by, and led by students across the country.

Gun-control advocacy groups have become involved in “sister marches” being planned at more than two dozen U.S. cities and London.

In Denver, the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence applied for a permit for its March 24 rally at the state capitol, according to a state spokesman. Moms Demand Action, backed by billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, has jumped in even as it tries to keep the spotlight on the teens.

The teens are being coached and guided by the gun control lobby who's been waiting for something like this. Their springs have been released, and they are springing into action well knowing that something, somewhere, would give them the chance, sometime soon. They wanted a violent mass shooting in the schools so that they could do exactly what they are doing, now.

The problem for them is they don't want anyone to know this was pre-planned, that they badly desired a horrific shooting, and in the end all of this is the gun control nuts simply taking advantage of a horrible situation. They are opportunists, but they want you to believe they are simply horrified helpers, and that these are not their events, but events organized and run by and led by "amazing students."

The reality is, the claim is flawed. It's obvious that the organizing features of these rallies are beyond the capacity of a bunch of average high school kids. The kids don't have the resources and sophistication to pull off a major national protest without the help of experienced political hands.

I am not condemning these groups for wanting to help. I get it. If an issue came up that was on the conservative side of the coin, I would expect conservative organizations to get involved, and help fund and organize whatever events are necessary. My problem is the fact that the liberal left Democrats and allies are doing what they always do - they are shrouding the whole thing with deception, and an attempt to guide the message from behind the scenes in the hope it will create more sympathy, or whatever else they are seeking in order to forward their message of ultimately confiscating the guns of all Americans.

For me, whenever deception is inserted into any situation, it throws up a ton of red flags.According to Sheriff David A. Clarke, the intrusion by leftist forces goes deeper than mere influence and help by anti-gun organizations. "The well ORGANIZED effort by Florida school students demanding gun control has GEORGE SOROS’ FINGERPRINTS all over it. It is similar to how he hijacked and exploited black people’s emotion regarding police use of force incidents into the COP HATING Black Lives Matter movement."

Is this an international movement with the secret power of billionaires behind it?

The Women’s March, mentioned earlier in this article, partners with 100 Soros-funded groups.

The National Park Service application submitted estimates a crowd of 500,000, which would make it one of the largest events on the Mall, rivaling the Women’s March of January 2017, which drew an estimated half-million.

Plans for the march include 14 jumbotrons, 20 tents, 2,000 chairs, 2,000 portable toilets, a press riser and 20 buses.

Still believe the students are behind it all?

A GoFundMe page created by student Cameron Kasky has raised $1.5 million of its $2 million goal. A large part of the ability to raise so much money may be because of how the media has been successfully shoving microphones in front of the faces of grieving, scarred, and emotional teenagers, who, in their emotionally distraught state, are saying exactly what media progressives want them to say.

People are angry, hurt, and emotional, but as father of one of the slain, Andrew Pollack, has said, this shouldn't be about gun control, it should be about making schools safe.

Among the solutions has been to arm personnel on campus. I am good with that. Not all of the teachers, or someone who is not trained to handle such situations.

We've seen the failure of cowards, no matter how rare it may be, in law enforcement when faced with such a situation.

I was talking to a retired police chief the other day and he told me his heart went out to the campus officer in Florida. The law enforcement person on campus had apparently not received all of the training he needed, or he knew that the .223 rounds coming out of that AR15 would pierce his armor, so he hid, and he waited, and will have to live with the label of "coward" for the rest of his life because of his lack of action.

In Fox News' report about the armed officer on campus who was too afraid to engage the shooter, it has been reported that he hid behind a door until he felt it was safe to come out. Granted, we don't know to what extent his training was, but whatever training he had received, it didn't make him willing enough to engage the situation. The death toll could have been much lower if he would have done his job. While the Broward County Sheriff has been going around boasting about his "amazing leadership," the reality is that actions speak louder than words, and his words make him look like a fool - especially when three law enforcement individuals failed to do their jobs during the shooting in the Florida high school, and their inaction likely led to a number of deaths that could have been avoided if they had taken action.

That all said, the problem was not that the three armed personnel nearby were cowards, but that enough armed personnel weren't available and armed (the more the merrier in case some turn out to be cowards).

How many former military personnel, former law enforcement personnel, or gun enthusiasts who have received a large amount of firearms training are out there who are now teachers, or who are unemployed and would be perfect as on campus security personnel? How many of them could have been available on campus in Florida, and could have stopped the shooter before he got his shots off?

The liberal left wants to make this about gun control, and the establishment wants to turn our schools into hardened prisons. Sure, take safety measures. Have personnel on campus who are armed. But, more importantly, how are we going to turn our culture around that has come to embrace death, violence, and defiance to common sense?

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Douglas V. Gibbs hosts Constitution Radio on KMET 1490-AM every Saturday at 1:00 pm Pacific Time ... except, today's program will be guest hosted by Glenn Stull, President of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party since I am going to be giving a presentation at the Back to Basics Homeschool Conference in Menifee.

Live on the Radio Dial: Banning, KMET 1490-AMLive on the Internet: KMET1490AM.comLive on your mobile phone: KMET APP● Android ● AppleArchived as a Podcast: Sound CloudCongressional Candidate Edwin Duterte, who is one of the Republicans challenging Maxine Waters for her seat, will be joining us at the top of the first hour . . .

Join us, not only to listen, but to participate. Phone in during the show, 951-922-3532Here's this week's AllStar Collision/CarStar Big Stories of the week:

...

Fair Use

~FAIR USE~ Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

However, if you still believe your copyright has been violated, we accept notifications of alleged copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Note that if you materially misrepresent a claim of copyright infringement you will be liable for damages (including costsand attorney fees). We require the following information in order to respond to your request: Describe in detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, “The copyrighted work is the code that appearson http://www.example.com/thecode.html") Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in #1. Include relevant URL’s that will allow us to identify the work. Your address, telephone number,and email address. Include the following statement “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Include thefollowing statement “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Sign the notification, type your full name, sign it electronicallyif submitted via email. Send the notification to douglasvgibbs@yahoo.com. Please place in the subject line Political Pistachio Copyright Infringement.

You can also Email me to bitch and complain if you so desire, as well. In the event that you are offended by my site please advise me of the offensive material by Email, and I will promptly print the Email, and then place it in my shredder to serve as kindling for my fireplace.